Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/ChrisGriswold

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

[edit] ChrisGriswold

Final (62/1/1) Ended Mon, 16 Oct 2006 19:05:22 UTC

ChrisGriswold (talk · contribs) has been an active contributor since August of 2005. He has been active in Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics. He's also been diligent in helping articles that may otherwise devolve into fanon maintain the guidelines of WP:V and WP:RS. I think giving him the mop will be a benefit to the project. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 18:14, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll toss in as co-nom. CG is Captain Cleanup at WP:CMC, and, despite the "help" of the fanboys who want to insert their theory or "summarize" the latest issue of a comic in 1000 words, he's done a great deal to help treat comics in an encyclopedic fashion on Wikipedia. I can't remember ever seeing him get mad at anyone, let alone act rashly, and I can't think of anyone who'd make a more reasonable admin. I just hate that he has to have an RFA inflicted upon him before he can be an admin. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:48, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Damn, I wanted to nominate Chris but I guess I'll take third nominate instead. Unlikely to abuse the tools. Understands the processes. Collaborates well. Good contributor. Hiding Talk 19:12, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:I accept this nomination gladly.--Chris Griswold (☎☓) 18:47, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I previously submitted myself for Editor Review, which I partially cannibalized to answer the second question below.

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: I can see that the admin tools like rollback will help me fight vandalism, something I have already been focused on, but which has been frustrating at times. I have been reading more about deletion processes, speedy deletion in particular recently, and I would like to become more involved with this. Finally, I think that the patience and understanding of policy and guidelines that has come to me with experience would help me in assessing editor conduct such as 3RR violations and personal attacks and administering appropriate sanctions.
Oh, one more thing: I'm from a county in Pennsylvania that has a lot of interesting history involving the American Revolution and the birth of the oil industry, and I've been working to create, edit, and organize related articles. I've had thoughts about recruiting local historians and possibly even schools to work on these articles is a small WikiProject, but I have felt that such a project needs an admin, and so I have held off on any such plans. Should I be granted adminship, I will investigate such a project in a month or so, after I have done some more reading and gotten comfortable with the new tools.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: I have made quite a few contributions to WP:CMC, primarily in re-organizing the main page and directory template, categorizing relevant templates, working with other editors to create our own Wikiproject-specific guidelines, and minding the project's task list. Additionally, I re-worked the introductory page that Hiding (talk · contribs) created, and I created and promoted the Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/Notice Board, which organizes the project's AfDs and merge proposals. I did all of this to increase the project's ease-of-use and participation; I want editors to have the applicable resources at hand and new editors to feel more confident in their involvement. I have additionally created several templates designed as editing shortcuts or ask for specific types of citations.
I have found a niche condensing plot summaries to justify fair use of the fictional text and to make the articles easier for a casual Wikipedia reader to read. I have reduced a number in size by half but retained the same amount of information. Off the top of my head, I did a number on Jean Grey and Professor X. Psyphics (talk · contribs) has teamed up with me on several articles, such as Hulk (comics). I have written and provided sources for a number of articles, but a legion of editors dumped a ton of info into WP:CMC around the middle of the week when new comics come out, and several of us are needed to prune that info.
I created Wikipedia:Notability (comedy) to address the wide array of articles about stand-up comedians and sketch groups on Wikipedia. We are currently working to make this a guideline.
Finally, one of my favorite things that I have done is arguing successfully for the deletion of an article that I had worked on quite a bit when I first got heavily involved with Wikipedia. With more experience, I felt that while it may have been a fun personal project, it didn't belong on Wikipedia. I just think it shows what I expect from my work and that anything I would consider doing to another editor's work is something I would do to myself.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: An editor, T-man, the Wise Scarecrow (talk · contribs), was well intentioned but very mean-spirited and belligerent with editors he disagreed with. He had a lot of energy to devote to Wikipedia, but the edits he made, as well as his behavior, caused a number of problems and ill will, and he was repeatedly banned. I got frustrated with him several times, but I repeatedly tried to redirect his energy toward something better-suited to his skills and interests. Despite this, his behavior continued, and he was banned repeatedly, until he earned an indefinite block.
I realized I had invested too much time and effort in one editor, and I wasn't the only one. I began to notice that a number of editors who had gotten heavily involved around the same time as me had also begun to sag in output and enthusiasm. I made an effort to show my support and appreciation for them when I could, and I created Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics Cleanup for those editors especially focused on the cleanup of comics-related articles. The project's is a collaboration, designed to coordinate focused group editing efforts and promote camaraderie.
4. Under what circumstances would you consider blocking an established user? --Mcginnly | Natter 22:54, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Excessive and disruptive vandalism. Most vandals spit out their "Chuck is a fag" and get bored, but vandals with a real desire to disrupt should be blocked.
  • Sockpuppets used to avoid a ban or for disruption.
  • Editors making repeat personal attacks on other users or making violent threats.
  • Editors repeatedly adding not rumors but libelous material to biographies.
The first three circumstances would be part of my goal of making Wikipedia as comfortable, welcoming, and easy to use as I can. The fourth just has to do with my distaste for making Wikipedia untrustworthy. These of course would all be subject to the circumstances and severity of the trangsgressions, as would the length of the block.
5 Would you be open to recall? People Powered 00:12, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Based on the reason for my editor review, I think I would, but you're asking someone who is not an admin. I imagine gaining those powers and responsibilities will change my frame of reference, so I can only tell you what I think now.
General comments

Discussion (for expressing views without numbering)

Support

  1. Support as nominator. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 19:52, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
  2. Support as co-nom. Hiding Talk 19:55, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
  3. Support, an excellent co-nom in Man in Black. I know how difficult it is to refactor comics blow-by-blow "summaries" into readable prose, and am impressed with your cool head as well. --tjstrf 19:59, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
  4. Support, per AMIB's co-nom. ¬_¬ - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:12, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
  5. Support: I tend to think Chris dials back the summaries too far, but his commitment, courtesy, and dedication are undeniable. I am confident that Chris would be a solid admin. TheronJ 20:20, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
  6. Captain Planet Support. Although there hasn't been much XfD activity in the last two months, you are still a great user who has contributed a helluva lot to article and Wikipedia discussions. This user is a phenomenal encyclopedia-builder, as well. Keep up the good work, buddy. Nishkid64 20:29, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
  7. Support per AMIB -- I think Chris' devotion to high encyclopedic standards, and his ability to communicate clearly and patiently demonstrate that he would make a fair arbitrator when dealing with disputes. ~CS 20:34, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
  8. Support - There's nothing much left to say about Chris. Great nomination by Malber, excellent choice. —Lesfer (t/c/@) 20:38, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
  9. Support why not, looks good. --Alex (Talk) 20:40, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
  10. Support looks good to me.-- danntm T C 21:01, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
  11. strong support Chris has shown to me he is willing to work through disputes no matter how hard that may be whilst remaining civil and nuteral,and that he understands and properly applies processBenon 21:08, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
  12. Edit-conflict Support Looks like a good editor and the answer to question 1 shows a willingness to fight vandals too. I have noticed this also in the user contributions but I would like to see more on an ongoing basis. (aeropagitica) 21:10, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
  13. Support Seems like a good editor, that would be good using the tools. Hello32020 21:46, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
  14. Support per nom. Rama's arrow 22:17, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
  15. Support It's rare that I see an RfA candidate whom I already thought was an admin, but I think this is one of those cases. -- Kicking222 22:36, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
  16. I would have liked to see a few more articlespace contributions in the form of writing articles, to come closer to fullfilling my guidelines (that I never follow), but I won't oppose because of that as the user is way to suited to be denied the rights. Support. – Elisson • T • C • 22:44, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
  17. Support per nom. Michael 22:47, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
  18. Support per above. —Khoikhoi 01:26, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  19. 'Support, looking good. --Terence Ong (T | C) 01:32, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  20. Support no qualms about it. — riana_dzasta wreak havoc-damage report 02:19, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  21. Support No problems here. A fine editor. --Siva1979Talk to me 02:41, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  22. Support per Siva1979. He appears to be more than qualified. -- P.B. Pilhet / Talk 03:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  23. Easy Support—If we can't trust ChrisGriswold with block/unblock/delete/undelete, then we'd probably better give up on Wikipedia. Do good things well - Williamborg (Bill) 04:12, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  24. Support and strongly so. There is much more to being an administrator than just vandal fighting, and I believe Griswold possesses the right attitude and can be trusted with the tools. Yamaguchi先生 06:59, 10 October 2006
  25. Merovingian ※ Talk 09:34, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  26. Support. I think that this user has the right mentality for an admin. Sure, he hasn't heavily participated in all of the deletion processes, but I think that he's familiar enough with them to be conversant. As well, he's helped with a notability guideline, which would imply interaction with other users, and that's the most important trait. — TKD::Talk 09:38, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  27. Support. I think hell be a good admin especially in the wikicomics project. I strongly trust his capability Bloodpack 12:22, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  28. Support. The "cool head" of the comics project, one of these persons who genuinely try to understand and help while still keeping the encyclopedia first (maintaining standards, checking guidelines, ...). The chance of abuse of the admin tools seems quasi nihil. Fram 12:25, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  29. Support i give my full support, A credit to wikipedia, its obviuos he will use his admin tools well.--Fabio 14:05, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  30. Support Even-handed and open-minded with a good eye for policy and guidance in discussion. Aside from that, I don't think he sleeps, making him like a one-man neighborhood watch. --NewtΨΦ 15:05, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  31. Support. Why the hell not? --Aaron 15:57, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  32. Support for a solid user. Themindset 16:34, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  33. Support  Doctor Bruno  16:38, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  34. Support. Looks like a fine editor. No concerns. Nephron  T|C 19:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  35. Strong support, based on this editor's history of conscientious efforts to improve the quality of so many articles, the calm way he handles conflicts which arise, and his knowledge of Wikipedia guidelines coupled with dedication to following them. On the rare occasions when I have not agreed with an edit of his, I have always been impressed by how well he expresses his position and with his great success in finding compromises that help us all to avoid edit wars. Off hand, I can think of no one else whom I would endorse more strongly. Doczilla 20:15, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  36. Support As a member of the Comics Wikiproject, I have seen him in many situations. I feel that he would be a good sysop.--Toffile 23:28, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  37. Support This editor has a good feel not only for valuable content but additionally how to interact with a variety of personalities here. Any concerns voiced for him are minute compared to the contributes he has and continues to make. NetK 23:49, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  38. Support A well-rounded user with ample experience; the mop will be safe (and busy, it seems) with them. - TewfikTalk 02:52, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
  39. Support His constant excellence and fair-mindedness as an editor is something we should all strive for. - Lex 08:38, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
  40. Support No doubt at all that Chris would make a fine admin. --HKMarksTALKCONTRIBS 13:41, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
  41. Weak Support Brian Boru is awesome 14:21, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
  42. Strong Support — His calm, articulate and polite responses to even the most uncivil provocateur have impressed me as admin material for some time now. He knows Wikipedia policies and guidelines, he has common sense, and I've only seen him get better at Wiki as time has gone on. -- Tenebrae 15:27, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
  43. Strong Support - no question about that. Good editor, great editcount, experience. NCurse work 16:51, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
  44. Support I've seen Chris' edits on the X-Men: The Last Stand article; very cool and level-headed, even when dealing with the same issue over and over and over... I have no doubt that he'll use the admin powers in a very fair manner, doing even more to improve the encyclopedia. EVula 18:05, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
  45. Support. Looks like he would be a good admin. NauticaShades 19:05, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
  46. Support per reasons listed above. User has exhibited level-headedness, initiative, leadership skills, and consistent awesomeness. WesleyDodds 21:58, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
  47. Support - per nom --T-rex 04:26, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  48. Support. Don't see any serious issues. Jayjg (talk) 01:38, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  49. Support - we need more hands at CAT:CSD. Even someone who doesn't do much XfD work yet, may be able to be pleaded into helping out durring high backlog times. ;-) JesseW, the juggling janitor 01:55, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  50. Support No doubt. Scobell302 02:53, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  51. Support From my interactions from Chris and what I've seen, I believe he'd be an awesome choice for being a Wikipedia administrator. As others have said above, he keeps his cool, he knows his stuff, and he would handle such responsibilities appropriately. -- Ned Scott 05:04, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  52. Support Per nom. Charlie MacKenzie 09:00, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  53. Support. This user is a great example of someone who can be trusted with the admin tools. They are very focused on the process of making articles better and will use the tools appropriately. Adminship isn't a big deal. Plus we need more admins from Pennsylvania. -- RM 13:13, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  54. Support.--DrBat 02:38, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  55. Unnecessary Support I know this is piling on, but I just wanted to voice my positive opinion of the candidate. As the community has mentioned, he's certainly to be trusted with the tools, given his experience and dedication to volunteering here hoopydinkConas tá tú? 16:15, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  56. Support per nom --Ageo020 (talk • contribs • count) 18:05, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  57. Support. Of course. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 18:33, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  58. You mean he isn't one already? Damn. Thought he was. 1ne 06:56, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  59. Weak support Changed from neutral to weak support per good handling of this awkward conflict.--Húsönd 19:45, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  60. Support great editor who definitely deserves the admin tools. Wikipediarules2221 19:59, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  61. Death of Superman Support real good editor, fake death. --InShaneee 22:13, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  62. Weak Support I was previously neutral but have decided to support Chris' AfD. Good luck. --Anthonycfc (Talk to Me) (sandbox) (E-Count) 16:41 16 Oct 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose: Like Husond, I'm concerned about the lack of involvment with XfD and especially with countervandalism. Note also that when the ChrisGriswold does revert a vandal edit, he generally doesn't leave the warning messages on the vandal's talk page, suggesting a minor failure either to understand or to follow procedure against vandals. I'm just not quite comfortable giving the mop uder this circumstance. I'd be glad to support once the user has more experience in these areas. Heimstern Läufer 03:22, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


Neutral

Neutral High sum of contributions and commitment to resolve disputes are most commendable. However, I cannot see much participation in tasks such as vandal fight or XfD lately so I'll just stay neutral for now.--Húsönd 20:09, 9 October 2006 (UTC) (changed to weak support)
  1. Pointless Neutral. I have reservations per Husond, so I am sort of short of supporting... (Not that it makes a difference at this piont.) Good luck! - CrazyRussian talk/email 14:53, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Neutral Would oppose, but I feel that is too strong. (Reason: slaughtered me whilst I was a newbie; didn't like the style then and stil don't. Otherwise an excellent Wikipedian.) --Anthony_cfc (talk • contribs) 19:07, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

That is a misrepresentation. Are you referring to my honest - but in no way mean - response to your editor review, to which you responded by accusing me of attacking you personally? I had no idea you considered yourself a "newbie"; I would expect that an editor would have some edits under his belt before asking to be judged as an editor. Additionally, why submit yourself for an editor review and then react that way when you don't get the reaction you expected? I may not agree with some of the things said in the neutral and negative votes on this page, but accept those as other editors' opinions and respect them for voicing them. Your perception of the events that transpired is strangely skewed, and I don't like your continuing to cast aspersions about me. --Chris Griswold (☎☓)

Indeed this is what I am talking about. However I have reviewed my decision to be neutral your RfA and have decided to support it. (This decision is completely mine and is not at all because you questioned my previous choice to register as neutral.) --—Preceding unsigned comment added by Anthony_cfc (talk • contribs)

The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.